Would an honest judge refuse to tanfer you to another court if you told him you felt you the judge was discrim

Question

Would an honest judge not want a defendant to feel he was being discriminated against and just transfer him immediatly to another court.
I would like to get a lot of opinions on this.

Answer 1

Only if the defendant could prove a relationship between the presiding judge and the defendant which could affect the judge's impartiality.

The judge has to recuse himself without mention by the defense; However, if the judge refuses then there is a strong case for a hearing before the administrative judge for that jurisdiction.

Answer 2

A judge is required to recuse himself (or herself) if there is any reasonable appearance of impropriety or bias.

The key words are "reasonable appearance".

A judge is not required to withdraw or transfer the case if it seems the primary goal is just to forum-shop in the hopes of getting a more sympathetic judge.

Also, remember that a defendant telling a judge that the defendant feels discriminated by the judge is an insult to the judge. It's basically saying "your honor, I don't think you are going to do your job and I don't think you're capable of being ethical about your job". That's a serious insult.

Which is why most defense attorneys will only raise the issue based on the "appearance of impropriety", which can be asserted objectively, without actually calling the judge biased.

Answer 3

Probably not just because you told them. But there are aspects of each case and judge that are flagged for a closer look when a docket is set to avoid conflict of interest, or a personal bias by the judge against the defendant.

For one thing, I think judges are subject to a certain amount of their personal business out in the open, at least with close colleagues. So if, say, a judge has had a close personal experience with a drunk driver or is in recovery for alcohol abuse, etc, then that isn't the judge to hear a drunk driving case and it is probably more than one person's job to watch out for these kinds of pairings.

So my guess is that they handle this way before the biased judge and defendant find themselves in the same courtroom. I would hope that judges respect, trust, and defer to that process when things get too close for comfort.

We do hear about judges who have zero tolerance for this or that, and in defense circles, that you don't want to appear before a certain judge if you are on trial for this or that. But I don't know if that is so much a personal vendetta or whatever. I hope not...yet, if the judge's personal biases are not questioned by the court in that area, then you may just have to deal with "the hanging judge" for that crime.

Answer 4

An any judge, honest or not, would never do it immediately. The case was assigned to him, he did not pick it. He would be required to continue to rule on the case until it was shown that the judge acted in a discriminatory way or the judge himself were to feel he could not make an impartial ruling, which is not likely. That could be an issue for a higher court to decide. Discrimination could not be shown until the judge has made a final ruling.

Answer 5

First, your question is ambiguous. An honest judge would not be discriminatory in the first place. Second, yes, a judge is in place to make sure that any decision in unbiassed and fair.

Answer 6

They will only transfer a case if you, or more accurately, your attorney can *prove* that you will not get a fair trial. Proof is the operative word, and is not easy to accomplish. Honesty has nothing to do with it; these are the rules they must abide by.

Answer 7

its insulting, but you need to show evidence of that which isn't always easy judges need edvidence